Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Behaviour of Weak Shales in Underground Environments

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Predicting the ground response for tunnels in weak shales remains challenging. Predicting the ground response is challenged by difficulties in characterising the material, and our ability to predict deformations that are driven by coupled hydromechanical processes, when this material yields. The techniques that are used for characterising weak shales are reviewed, and three case histories are examined that demonstrate the behaviour of these weak rocks during tunnelling. A general framework is provided for assessing the squeezing potential for weak shales.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amann F, Kaiser PK, Button EA (2012) Experimental study of brittle behavior of clay shale in rapid triaxial compression. Rock Mech Rock Eng 45(1):21–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armand G, Noiret A, Zghondi J, Seyedi DM (2013) Short- and long-term behaviors of drifts in the Callovo-Oxfordian claystone at the Meuse/Haute-Marne underground research laboratory. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 5(3):221–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernier F, Li XL, Bastiaens W (2007) Twenty-five years’ geotechnical observation and testing in the tertiary boom clay formation. Géotechnique 57(2):229–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bock H, Dehandschutter B, Martin CD, Mazurek M, de Haller A, Skoczylas F, Davy C (2010) Self-sealing of fractures in argillaceous formations in the context of geological disposal of radioactive waste. NEA 6184. Nuclear Energy Agency Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development

  • Chern, JC, CW Yu, Shiao FY (1998) Tunnelling in squeezing ground and support estimation. In: Proceedings of the regional symposium on sedimentary rock engineering, Taipei, pp 293–297

  • Cornish LJ, Moore DP (1985) Dam foundation investigations for a project on soft shale. In: Proceedings of 38th Canadian geotechnical conference, Edmonton, pp 171–178

  • Einstein HH (1996) Tunnelling in difficult ground-swelling behaviour and identification of swelling rocks. Rock Mech Rock Eng 29(3):113–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gschnitzer E, Goliasch R (2009) TBM modification for challenging rock conditions—a progress report of the Niagara Tunnel Project (NTP). Geomech Tunn 2(2):68–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoek E, Guevara R (2009) Overcoming squeezing in the Yacambú-Quibor tunnel. Venezuela. Rock Mech Rock Eng 42(2):389–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoek E, Marinos P (2000) Predicting tunnel squeezing problems in weak heterogeneous rock masses—part 2: potential squeezing problems in deep tunnels. Tunn Tunn Int 32(11):45–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Holtz RD, Kovacs WD, Sheahan TC (2011) An introduction to geotechnical engineering, 2nd edn. Pearson/Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Imrie AS (1991) Stress-induced response from both natural and construction-related processes in the deepening of the Peace River Valley, BC. Can Geotech J 28(5):719–728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanyon GW, Martin CD, Giger S, Marschall P (2014) Development and evolution of the Excavation damaged zone (EDZ) in the Opalinus clay—a synopsis of the state of knowledge from Mont Terri. Nagra Report NAB, pp 14–87

  • Little TE (1989) Construction and performance of a large diameter test chamber in shale. In: Lo KY (ed) Proceedings of international congress on progress and innovation in tunnelling, vol II, Toronto, pp 869–876

  • Macciotta R, Martin CD, Elwood D, Lan H, Vietor T (2012) Measured convergence at a test tunnel in the Opalinus clayshale formation. In: CD-ROM proceedings of 21st Canadian rock mechanics symposium, RockEng 2012, Edmonton

  • Martin CD, Kaiser PK, McCreath DR (1999) Hoek–Brown parameters for predicting the depth of brittle failure around tunnels. Can Geotech J 36(1):136–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perras MA, Diederichs MS (2015) Observations and numerical back analysis of an excavation in the Queenston mudstone. In: Proceedings 13th ISRM congress, Montreal, pp 1–12

  • Perras MA, Diederichs MS, Besaw D (2014) Geological and geotechnical observations from the Niagara Tunnel Project. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, pp 1–21

  • Santi PM (2006) Field methods for characterizing weak rock for engineering. Environ Eng Geosci 12(1):1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sargent DW, Cornish LJ (1985) Water susceptibility of Shaftesbury shale. In: Proceedings of 38th Canadian geotechnical conference, Edmonton, pp 197–206

  • Underwood LB (1967) Classification and identification of shales. ASCE J Soil Mech Found Div 93(SM6):97–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Wild KM, Wymann LP, Zimmer S, Thoeny R, Amann F (2014) Water retention characteristics and state-dependent mechanical and petro-physical properties of a clay shale. Rock Mech Rock Eng 48(2):427–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank Tom Lam (NWMO) for compiling the properties of the Queenston Shale, Dr. Matt Perras for providing Fig. 19 and Dr. Evert Hoek for his review comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2W2, Canada

    C. Derek Martin

  2. National Cooperative for the Disposal of Radioactive Waste (Nagra), 5430, Wettingen, Switzerland

    Silvio Giger

  3. Fracture Systems Ltd., St. Ives, Cornwall, TR26 1EQ, UK

    G. W. Lanyon

Authors
  1. C. Derek Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Silvio Giger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G. W. Lanyon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Derek Martin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Martin, C.D., Giger, S. & Lanyon, G.W. Behaviour of Weak Shales in Underground Environments. Rock Mech Rock Eng 49, 673–687 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-015-0860-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-015-0860-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation